And I have to rely upon the bread dealer. How does the matter stand? — R. Joseph answered, R. Judah was the Master [in regard to all matters of religious law] in the house of the Nasi, and it was he that gave the above decision, and it was in accordance with the law that he reported. For we have learnt: R. Judah reports six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel. Beth Shammai pronounce the blood of a carcass clean; but Beth Hillel pronounce it unclean. R. Jose son of R. Judah said, Even when Beth Hillel pronounced it unclean they said so only in respect of a quarter-log of blood, since it can congeal and amount to an olive's bulk. MISHNAH. ONE MAY NOT OFFER ONE [LOG], TWO, OR FIVE [LOGS], BUT ONE MAY OFFER THREE, FOUR, SIX, OR ANYTHING ABOVE SIX. GEMARA. The question was asked: Is the wine of the drinkofferings indivisible or not? In what circumstances [does the question arise]? Where, e.g., a man brought five [logs of wine]. If you say that the wine of the drink-offerings is not indivisible, then four logs can be drawn off and offered, since that is the proper quantity for a ram, and the remaining log would be for a freewill-offering; but if you say that it is indivisible, then these five logs may not be offered until the quantity is made up. How is it then? Abaye said, Come and hear: There were six [money chests] for freewill-offerings. And to the question, What did they represent? the reply was given, They represented the surplus of the sin-offering, the surplus of the guilt-offering, the surplus of the guilt-offering of the Nazirite, the surplus of the guilt-offering of the leper, the surplus of the bird-offerings, and the surplus of the sinner's meal-offering. Now if it were so, then another money chest should have been prepared for the surplus of the drink-offerings? — Those served only for freewill-offerings of the community, whereas these were quite frequent, and therefore the surplus of the drink-offerings of one man could be joined to that of another and could in this way be offered. Raba said, Come and hear: Home-born: this teaches us that a man may offer wine for a drink-offering. How much [must he bring]? Three logs. Whence do we know that if he desired to bring more he may do so? Because the text states, Shall be. We might suppose that he may bring less, the text therefore states, After this manner. Now what is meant by ‘bring more’? Shall I say [it means the bringing of] four or six logs? But why are three logs admitted? [Surely] because that quantity is proper for a lamb! Then similarly four and six logs are proper for a ram and a bullock respectively? Hence it must mean [the bringing of] five logs, thus proving that the wine for the drink-offerings is not indivisible. This indeed proves it. R. Ashi said, But we have not learnt so [in our Mishnah]! [For it states]: ONE MAY NOT OFFER ONE [LOG], TWO, OR FIVE [LOGS], BUT ONE MAY OFFER THREE, FOUR, SIX, OR ANYTHING ABOVE SIX. Now here five is stated alongside with two, therefore as two can under no circumstances be admitted for drink-offerings, so five cannot be admitted at all? — This does not necessarily follow; each follows its own rule. Abaye said, If you are able to prove that the wine of the drink-offerings is not indivisible, then it is not indivisible. But if you prove that it is indivisible, then I am clear as to the law with regard to any number of logs up to ten, but about elevenᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜ